Contents

Military experts like Sun Tzu say attrition is not the best way to win a war.[2] A famous quote by Sun Tzu is "the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting".[3] In a war of attrition both parties think they can win.[2] One is always wrong and often, both are wrong.[2] They can both end up with fewer resources than when they began.[2] Ideally, wars are won using the least numbers of soldiers and weapons possible. Another form of attrition warfare is the search and destroy operations used by the United States during the Vietnam War.[4] That same conflict proved that wars of attrition do not work when your enemy is willing to absorb higher losses and continue a war indefinitely.[4]

One of the best examples of a war of attrition is World War I on the Italian and Western Fronts.[6] Both sides were drained until one side did not have enough men, horses, food and other military resources to continue.[source?] The term was often used to show a lack of imagination in simply throwing soldiers at their enemy.[6] While this implies attrition warfare can be avoided, unfortunately it often cannot. Attrition is frequently a key approach to winning a war.[6] An army will use maneuver and position to its advantage so that when the fight does occur the enemy suffers the greater loss of resources.[6] But attrition may be necessary to create the space in which to maneuver and position forces.[6] For this reason, the two approaches to fighting a war are closely linked and attrition is often the more important.[6]